In the future, with the vote of one more justice, the New Deal settlement might be significantly modified

Precedent and the Health Care Decision

Obama ballot challenge arrives in SUPREME COURT

FindLaw.com:

If Justice Clarence Thomas does not grant a stay or referral to full court, Farrar v Obama will be reassigned to Chief Justice John Roberts

Press release

Law Offices of Dr. Orly Taitz

Farrar v Obama in front of the Supreme Court

Farrar order denying motion to quash subpoenas

Farrar corrected proposed summary of law and fact


Farrar v Obama Application for Stay of primary election votes for Barack Obama in the state of Georgia was filed and docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States and referred to Justice Clarence Thomas, a justice in charge of the 11th Circuit from which the case originated. If Justice Thomas does not grant the stay or referral to the full court, the case will be in front of the Chief Justice John Roberts.

This case was heard on January 26, 2012 in Atlanta Georgia. Attorney Orly Taitz brought 7 witnesses, among them Senior Deportation office of the Department of Homeland Security, all of whom testified that Obama’s Social Security card and Birth certificate are forged and fraudulently obtained documents. Taitz subpoenaed Obama to appear in court and produce valid identification papers. Obama filed a motion to quash the subpoenas filed by Taitz. Presiding judge Malihi ruled in favor of Taitz and ordered Obama to appear in court and produce the identification papers. Obama and his attorney Michael Jablonski were in contempt of court ordered subpoena and boycotted the hearing, claiming that Obama is being harassed. GA law requires the candidate to prove his eligibility, Obama did not provide any proof. Based on yet unknown consideration judge Malihi allowed Obama on the ballot.

DVD of the actual court argument in the case and witness sworn testimony is available through this site by paying $20 (see Donate above and indicating that this is for the DVD of GA trial). Decision by Justice Thomas is expected within 2 weeks. If no state is granted by Thomas, decision by Roberts will be 2 weeks later.

Farrar v Obama is one of several cases prosecuted by attorney Taitz, challenging Obama Tax. Other cases are in front of the Federal District judge Wingate in Mississippi, Judge Reid in Indiana, Court of Appeals in Washington DC, Federal District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles.

Motion Hearing in Taitz v Sebelius challenging Obama Tax as violating Establishment clause, Free Exercise of Religion Clause, Equal Protection Clause and Due Process clause of Christian and Jewish citizens due to exemptions given to religious sects and due to expected mass exemptions of Muslim citizens, will be on August 10, 9:30 am in the U.S. District court in Los Angeles.

End of Press release

Orly Taitz, Esq.

THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court Historical Society:

Professor Arkes discussed the Four Horsemen, four conservative justices on the Court during the 1930s who tried to block many of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. He examined many of the Supreme Court cases from the Roosevelt era.

C-SPAN VIDEO

Why Did Obama Choose Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court?

HOW DEEP IS THE CONNECTION?

Sotomayor may already have been working with the DSY for some time. And it’s disturbing that Sotomayor would have held up Lenora Fulani, whose anti-Semitism was widely known, as a role model for youth. . .

How long has Sonia Sotomayor been associated with Fred Newman, the DSY, and Obama?

Is there a connection among Sotomayor, Gates, Obama and the late Fred Newman?

New York Times corrects Obama's Supreme Court error

...Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election...

Justice Alito’s Reaction